Americans Want To Secede From America!

Dear Red States,
Please don't leave. The election was tough for you as it was for me too when Bush was "selected" as president in 2000. We should try to solve our
problems together.

If you do decide to leave it will create an economic boom in the rest of the U.S. because we are supporting more welfare mothers, pregnant teens, food
stamp recipients, and freeloaders in the Red States. Do you really want to help us by leaving? If you want revenge, stay.

Originally posted by earthalien50
Dear Red States,
Please don't leave. The election was tough for you as it was for me too when Bush was "selected" as president in 2000. We should try to solve our
problems together.

If you do decide to leave it will create an economic boom in the rest of the U.S. because we are supporting more welfare mothers, pregnant teens, food
stamp recipients, and freeloaders in the Red States. Do you really want to help us by leaving? If you want revenge, stay.

Again, typically I do not bother to engage in a battle of wits with those who are unarmed. However, your post is so erroneous and misguided that it
requires a response... WTF!?!? Try taking a look at the Census data to see how wrong you are!

After all, it sure is trying paying for all of those welfare mothers in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Indiana, the Dakotas, Texas... etc... In fact, even in
the Red states, the areas where the welfare mothers live are in the BLUE counties. But you knew that already, didn't you!?

Originally posted by subjectzero
People are disgusted and at their wits end. They want solutions to their problems. They see four more years of negatives coming their way -
unemployment, recession, taxes, etc.

Laugh if you must but try to understand the frustration that is driving people who disgree with you to these extremes. They are desperate for
change.

They haven't seen any in four years and they don't have any hope for the next four.

I can sympathize with people who are looking for solutions and certainly with calls for secession from the union, but at least these people could cite
the actual cause of their dilemma. The problems began a lot longer ago than 2008, or even 1908, or even 1808. The problems are not a result of the
"union" of states, but with how that union was funded ~ bankers. Remember, the first clause in article 1 section 8 provides for taxing the people to
pay off congress's borrowing from bankers.

As always, the problem is MONEY and how it's created, based on credit and debt.

The first congressman from Georgia, James Jackson, seemed to have been one of few people that understood where Hamilton’s plan would take the
young nation. On February 9, 1790 he stated: (Annals of Congress, Vol. I, February 1790).

I contend that such a funding system in this country will be highly dangerous to the welfare of the Republic. It may, for a moment, raise our
credit, and increase our circulation by multiplying a new form of currency, but it must hereafter settle upon our posterity a burden which they can
neither bear nor relieve themselves from. It will establish a precedent in America that may, and in all probability will, be pursued by the Sovereign
authority, until it brings upon us that ruin which it has never failed to bring, or is inevitably bringing, upon all the nations of the earth who have
had the temerity to make the experiment. Let us take warning by the errors of Europe and
guard against the introduction of a system followed by calamities so universal. Though our present debt be but a few millions, in the course of a
single century it may be multiplied to an extent we dare not think of.

This all happened long before the federal reserve was even a twinkle in JP Morgan's eye.

But no one thinks about simply seceding from the international banks. The states NEED all that funding, they grovel for that funding, they give up all
their people's rights to keep that funding flowing because they can't think outside the box the founders put them in 250 years ago.

Again, typically I do not bother to engage in a battle of wits with those who are unarmed. However, your post is so erroneous and misguided that it
requires a response... WTF!?!? Try taking a look at the Census data to see how wrong you are!

After all, it sure is trying paying for all of those welfare mothers in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Indiana, the Dakotas, Texas... etc... In fact, even in
the Red states, the areas where the welfare mothers live are in the BLUE counties. But you knew that already, didn't you!?

I may not be as smart as you are or as successful, but I am at least looking for the answers. If you are willing to correct my "erroneous and
misguided response" I am listening. In the meantime, I ask that you check out this link.

It's a blog and there is no key to even understand the map. Again, a careful review of census data on welfare and food stamp recipients aligned with
voting tendencies will blow this whole notion up.

I haven't the time to do your homework for you. I've already seen the evidence first hand. People on the gravy train vote for the gravy train - so
why would they be a "Red State"? They're certainly not going to vote to lower taxes on those evil filthy rich people and they sure the heck
aren't go to vote for the gravy train to stop.

Simply employing basic logic, without the actual data, would have you arrive at that conclusion.

It was just a blog? I could go out and find more "credible" sources of the statistics if you want me to. Or you might want to Google "Top Welfare
States" if you are interested.
The link that I provided had some interesting statistics if you read the article.

Here is an excerpt of my link in my last post:

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21
Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most
of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts?
California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar.
Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

I haven't the time to do your homework for you. I've already seen the evidence first hand. People on the gravy train vote for the gravy train - so
why would they be a "Red State"? They're certainly not going to vote to lower taxes on those evil filthy rich people and they sure the heck
aren't go to vote for the gravy train to stop.

Simply employing basic logic, without the actual data, would have you arrive at that conclusion.

I am dying to see the "actual data," but I am almost certain that you just don't have the time to enlighten a fellow citizen. I don't mean to be
harsh, but logic and reason are what you claim, yet you have no evidence other than your personal opinion. This seems contradictory to me. Sorry, I
just don't have the time to waste talking to someone with does not know what is true and what is Fox.

We sure are. But people seem to feel like this is a United States problem and all it will take is the pushing of the right buttons. This is a Global
problem. An unprecedented and widespread economic disease that may be terminal for all we know. Romney doesn't have the answer. The other side was
doing and saying everything they could to regain control (this should be evident by the outrageous position shifts and contradictory campaign
rhetoric). Not to 'fix' the country but rather to put THEIR chosen benefactors at the public trough to feed. Don't kid yourselves. Nothing would
have changed.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
if the red state were to start there own united states the blue states would run out of money and collapse. no more red states to steal weath from.
They wouldnt even hold up a good ground force because they dont like the military and they have banned guns in there states. it would be an easy take
over for red states.

That is uninformed. Red states receive their federal tax dollars from
Blue states, more often then not. And, republicans use tax money just the same
As any politician. You swear...

You obviously don't examine actions because over half of our national
Debt was run up during Reagan and the Bush duo.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.